Should we have political parties?

[Grandmaster]

While reading over both the new and old Constitutions, I noticed that parties have been disallowed. I've heard many people suggest parties, but always in the wrong place, and I can't find updated threads. So I'm starting this thread to try to get a poll about amending the party law up and running. If you agree, second and we'll get the poll up. Feel free to criticize as well.

If all else fails, beat it with a big stick.

[Grandmaster]

BTW, does anyone know how to sticky a thread? I'm kinda new here, thanks yas.

[Curufinwe]

You reqest the thread to be made sticky in the "Needed stuff" thread in the first DemoGame thread. And I see no need for this, our current system works brilliantly, because in each election they have a choice, whereas otherwise they'd have to vote for an entire party that could have some contrary to their wishes. Therefore I refuse to support this.

[Strider]

Only the mods can sticky a thread.

I like the idea of political party's, but the are not allowed because they caused choas in the Civ2 DemoGame. We could possibly try it, but we have to try to keep the groups limited on what they do. Say the political party's try to get candiates into office and keeping them their. Once that is done they can get their groups idea's through to other govermental offcials. Of course it might also be fun to see the competion betweenn them.

[Grandmaster]

What I was thinkin of wasn't vote for a party as a whole, but instead have individual candidates with similar ideas join together and support each other. Like maybe have the Prez and VP run together like in the real world, then have everyone else elected seperately, and have Prez appoint military officials, etc. to be confirmed by the rest of the gov't. In this way, if elected members of a party hold a majority and work together, they can support a friendly Prez or override a rival Prez in appointments and policies. Any opinions?

[Grandmaster]

Oh yeah, and say some people start the Democratic Party, the Communist Party, and the Random Party. If the Dems hold a majority, they could push for a change to Democracy, while if the Communists hold a majority they could push for a change to communism. But if another party gets to power, they could try to stay as is or push for a change to some other system. Hell, two parties might even want the same gov't and give bi-partisan support for a revolution. Just throwin out ideas, open to criticism.

[eyrei]

I think that these parties would be based more on personal like/dislike than on actual ideas of how to run the game, so I do not think it is a good idea. Generally, our elections revolve around a person's commitment to the game and their charisma rather than any idealistic differences between the candidates.

[Grandmaster]

If charisma is how the gov't is elected, just look at how most well-known parties were started by the most charismatic orators of all time. Lincoln brought the Republicans to the national stage, Lenin started up the Communist Party, and although I hate to say it, the Hitler was a good public speaker and did start a Party.

[Grandmaster]

As far as commitment goes, if they dont show commitment they wont be elected party or no party.

[Eklektikos]

I'm with Eyrei on this. I think that political parties would just be divisive, with no benefit to the playing of the game. The only viable "political" division in Civ3 terms is that between "Warmongers" and "Builders" and after a certain point in a huge map game the choice between these two approaches will have been almost irrevocably made - thus pretty much guaranteeing permanent office to one of the two sides.
In the current system, however, each official is chosen on his or her own individual merits and not because of the company they keep, which by and large means that each position is filled by the person that the majority of the citizenry consider to be best for that specific role at that time.

[eyrei]

Originally posted by Grandmaster
If charisma is how the gov't is elected, just look at how most well-known parties were started by the most charismatic orators of all time. Lincoln brought the Republicans to the national stage, Lenin started up the Communist Party, and although I hate to say it, the Hitler was a good public speaker and did start a Party.

But each of these people also had very definate ideas about how the coutnry should be run, and these ideas differed in many ways from those of other parties or groups. We do not have these broad differences of opinion.

[Grandmaster]

You've got me there, I guess a newby shouldn't be trying to pick a fight with the establishment. Thank ya'll for your time.

[eyrei]

Originally posted by Grandmaster
You've got me there, I guess a newby shouldn't be trying to pick a fight with the establishment. Thank ya'll for your time.

Don't worry about it. When the game first started I thought it would be fun to have political parties. Over time I came to realize that it would disrupt the game immensely.

PS. I am no longer a member of the establishment. Just a common citizen.

[Strider]

I think we should TRY it.... maybe a Beta Test (thanks for the idea eyrei[demogame RPG poll]) Through I think we shouldn't give them that much power. All they try to do is to get and keep their candates in office. They compete with other party's for the most candaites. We don't have any democratic party's etc. It should only be for fun.

[Grandmaster]

Like Strider said, maybe we should try it on a small scale. I agree, whatever we do here, it should be fun.

[Waterz]

As in my thread why dont we base it on AUstralian Parliamnet, the party with the most seats becomes the government of the day and the president or Primeminister chooses what people for which parrt of the ministery say the PM chooses who'll be Foreign Minister or Defence Minister

[Eklektikos]

I think political parties are something to think about for a future game once we've got the current system into a stable state, so basically when I'm old and grey and sittin' in my rocking chair telling stories about wars I never actually fought in.

Seriously though, I don't think it would be a good idea to even experiment with them until we have a proven system to fall back on once it becomes obvious that political parties and Civ demogames don't mix.

[Grandmaster]

I agree to an extent with Eklektikos. We should strength our current government before trying to create a new system. However, I think that once we are secure in our leadership and freedom, we should give parties a try. I do disagree with his last statement however. Is it not a bit premature to announce an unexplored system's failure?

Wenn alles sonst ausfällt, schlagen Sie es mit einem grossen Stock

If all else fails, beat it with a big stick

[Almightyjosh]

Unlike in an actual democracy, we dont vote for leaders, then give them open slather to do as they wish for their term. The leaders are supposed to respond to citizen demnds as they are at the time. Thus, hardworking and trustworthy people are better than people with strong ideologies!!!

Or we could just use Grandmaster's big stick....

[Shaitan]

We do have citizen groups. These groups can organize and lobby for their particular agendas and preferred candidates. This is about as close to a party system as I would be comfortable with.